Posted on 02/09/2014 10:49:33 AM PST by FreeAtlanta
And when I posted the full page image on an FR comment, I was informed that this image was the property of the owner, (the person who had obtained the image,) and rather than cause an upset, I removed it from the thread.
So let's take a look at him, Jeena Paradies is apparently a university student, or was, in 2005. He lives in Sweden, and appears on Google Search many times. What makes you believe he actually had anything to do with it's creation, and not that he just simply picked it up from the web? Either from when I posted it, before I removed it, or from another source? In that short time it was up on FR, one freeper made up an entire web page based upon that graphic, plus the death announcement and the resulting controversy. There's nothing sacred or private on the Net.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1567#1567
there’s a ‘comment removed’ at #1566 dated April, 28, 2011 which is where I had shown the full page graphic of the birth announcements. That might very well have been the first time that entire page was shown anywhere.
http://www.birthers.org/misc/sequential.html
and that’s the page to which I referred - that appeared almost instantly, before I had a chance to remove # 1566.
You’ll notice that we both get a mention. The author even links to the comment number on FR, so there can be no confusion about the dates.
And the dates are important.
Yes, they got photocopies of what was on the microfilms in Hawaii libraries and at the Library of Congress.
But the microfilm rolls themselves had very suspicious anomalies suggesting that those microfilms had been tampered with and/or replaced. The condition of the films was not what would come from a professional microfilming service such as created the microfilms for these newspapers, and the wear on the microfilms was not consistent with their age or the set-up where they were used. And there were things like scratches disappearing over time - which would indicate that scratched microfilms had later been replaced by more pristine ones.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2637720/posts?page=37#37
excerpt:
There’s more to that also, that I just thought of. Wikileaks, through somebody with the name “jeena paradies” (who is friendly with the Soros types, according to what I was able to find on him), published Obama’s so-called “Advertiser” birth announcement, claiming that it was the first time they had been published even though images had been online for some time. But it was the first time that the document was in searchable pdf format rather than as a graphic image.
DATED DECEMBER 7, 2010.
~~~~
Incredible. And when I posted the same graphic April 28, 2011 I was told I had no right to do so, that it was the property of the person who had obtained the image by photographing the microfilm at the library in Hawaii, which same page also appeared on microfilm at the Library of Congress.
Better I don’t write what’s going through my mind. The contradictions are piling up like...compost?
Even my normal good sense of humour is deserting me, last question:
Did the scratched and the non-scratched materials contain the same information?
Nothing like going over the same ground five years later...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/are_obamas_1961_newspaper_birth_announcements_fake.html
At about the same time as Starfelt’s July 2008 posting, a blogger named “Infidel Granny” posted the same birth announcement image on an AtlasShrugs blog. Infidel Granny claimed to have received her copy in an e-mail from the same nameless research librarian who helped Starfelt from the Hawaii State Library. Infidel Granny briefly resurfaced in 2009 in an AtlasShrugs blog, where she opined, “I sure hope you don’t think I had anything to do with a forgery.”
The origin of the second birth announcement is even more murky. The best evidence (hat tip: Butterdezillion) is that sometime around August 13, 2008, a Honolulu resident named “Koa” posted the August 14, 1961 Honolulu Star-Bulletin birth announcement on TexasDarlin apparently after she found it herself in the Hawaii State Library. The first twenty-five births in the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin announcements match exactly in the same order as the twenty-five births from the August 13 Advertiser.
~~~~
So we are back to a Swedish student creating a full page graphic in 2008, on which the we find the birth announcements...with the possible deception being that Virginia’s name was removed and replaced.
PS. And no one would have been any the wiser, IF they hadn’t slipped up and not taken into account that the girl was born at Wahiawah Hospital and not at Kapiolani, and neither could they have taken into account that the child whose death was announced August 8, was shown under the name of her father, and the parents would ultimately want that changed for her funeral.
Life’s full of traps like that. It’s part of that web you weave, when you first practice to deceive. The deception lasts forever, it keeps floating to the surface...
from the article:
“...My story goes back to November of 2001 and April-May of 2002 when K.S. candidates for admission were being screened and interviewed and selected. That was an unusual time of low applications for the new Maui campus and, so, low openings —— the latter set by the school based on the expectation of how many would apply.
According to well-sourced information, notes and personal recollections I gathered last week, the trustees and some administration officials at the schools manipulated the vacancies in 8th grade in order to admit the first non-Hawaiian student since some haole-faculty kids were let in more than 40 years ago. Then the trustees decided to keep silent about that shattering decision and did —— until there was a news leak from Maui campus officials in July 2002. ....”
Questions:
Who specifically let these kids in more than 40 years ago?
What did they do to get the kids in?
Where (other states/countries) did the kids come from?
When exactly did the admissions occur?
Why did they let the kids in?
How long did this go on; did they do this more often than “more than 40 years ago?
2002 - 40 = 1960 before ?? Was born.
It appears that no none Hawaiian aka children of Hawaiian heritage. ( see other links for that definition )were allowed in from 1960 to 2002
Therefore all including O would have had to qualify. An African or person from Kansas are NOT on the list
From:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_Schools
The schools’ controversial admissions policy prefers applicants with Native Hawaiian ancestry and has excluded all but two non-Hawaiians from attending since 1965. A lawsuit challenging the school’s admission policy resulted in a narrow victory for Kamehameha in the Ninth Circuit Court; however, Kamehameha ultimately settled, paying the plaintiff $7 million.[8]
My daughter-in-law attended Kamehameha in Honolulu.
Beautiful school.
.
More questions:
“....That should have been the end of it under KS policy in effect in 2002; sorry, but our admissions are now closed. That no-fudging policy had been adopted to end the old days when “red dots” put by certain applicants’ names meant they were friends of friends of the old trustees and that room should be created for them. The Probate Court had ordered fair, transparent admissions implemented by school officials, not the trustees. ….”
Who got admitted with ‘red dot’ system?
What was done to create ‘room’?
Where (state, etc) were they from?
When exactly did they get in?
Why did trustees and not officials manage admissions?
repeat - forgot to ping you:
PS. And no one would have been any the wiser, IF they hadn’t slipped up and not taken into account that the girl was born at Wahiawah Hospital and not at Kapiolani, and neither could they have taken into account that the child whose death was announced August 8, was shown under the name of her father, and the parents would ultimately want that changed for her funeral.
Life’s full of traps like that. It’s part of that web you weave, when you first practice to deceive. The deception lasts forever, it keeps floating to the surface...
yet more questions:
“...The operational culture established by the Probate Court after the scandal of the ‘97 shake-up of trustees says that admissions were to be controlled by the new CEO, Hamilton McCubbin, and chief admissions officer Wayne Chang. But those two were overruled by the trustees and legal officer Wong....
Now here’s the corker. Up through the Rossel affair, K.S. admissions used the term qualified Hawaiians. That meant cut-off test scores. But that also lowered the number of OK applicants and opened the way for non-Hawaiians to get in if Hawaiian applications were very low. So the trustees changed the rules for school year 2003. No more test scores. Just a preference for anyone with any amount of Hawaiian blood.
The current website says “Hawaiian preference so far as permitted by law.” Ironically, that no-more-test-standards decision has really complicated things for the Hawaiians-only crowd. ...”
Lawsuits
Who exactly was sued? School officials? Trustees? Both?
What was the outcome of the lawsuits?
Where are the people involved in the lawsuits now? Jail? Free?
When were the lawsuits settled?
Admissions change
Why did Wong override the probate court decision?
What happened afterward? Another lawsuit?
Why change from test score method to heritage method for admission criteria?
Even MORE questions; follow-the-money:
“....Most of its cash is at First Hawaiian Bank, with smaller amounts at other institutions, but not American Savings Bank because trustee Connie Lau also sits on the board of directors of HEI Inc., that bank’s parent company. The competition for that money is not insignificant in a time of extremely low-interest-payout and big demand for new mortgages. ...”
Cash location/what bank
Who else was a trustee and on a board of directors of a parent company, and thus excluded?
What/Where other banks besides First Hawaiian had the cash?
Why was most of the cash at one bank?
When were there any cases where a trustee was also on a bank board of directors?
On January 18, 1778, the English explorer Captain James Cook becomes the first European to discover the Hawaiian Islands when he sails past the island of Oahu. Two days later, he landed at Waimea on the island of Kauai and named the island group the Sandwich Islands, in honor of John Montague, who was the earl of Sandwich and one his patrons.
In 1768, Cook, a surveyor in the Royal Navy, was commissioned a lieutenant in command of the H.M.S. Endeavor and led an expedition that took scientists to Tahiti to chart the course of the planet Venus. In 1771, he returned to England, having explored the coast of New Zealand and Australia and circumnavigated the globe. Beginning in 1772, he commanded a major mission to the South Pacific and during the next three years explored the Antarctic region, charted the New Hebrides, and discovered New Caledonia. In 1776, he sailed from England again as commander of the H.M.S. Resolution and Discovery and in 1778 made his first visit to the Hawaiian Islands.
Cook and his crew were welcomed by the Hawaiians, who were fascinated by the Europeans’ ships and their use of iron. Cook provisioned his ships by trading the metal, and his sailors traded iron nails for sex. The ships then made a brief stop at Ni’ihau and headed north to look for the western end of a northwest passage from the North Atlantic to the Pacific. Almost one year later, Cook’s two ships returned to the Hawaiian Islands and found a safe harbor in Hawaii’s Kealakekua Bay.
It is suspected that the Hawaiians attached religious significance to the first stay of the Europeans on their islands. In Cook’s second visit, there was no question of this phenomenon. Kealakekua Bay was considered the sacred harbor of Lono, the fertility god of the Hawaiians, and at the time of Cook’s arrival the locals were engaged in a festival dedicated to Lono. Cook and his compatriots were welcomed as gods and for the next month exploited the Hawaiians’ good will. After one of the crewmembers died, exposing the Europeans as mere mortals, relations became strained. On February 4, 1779, the British ships sailed from Kealakekua Bay, but rough seas damaged the foremast of the Resolution, and after only a week at sea the expedition was forced to return to Hawaii.
The Hawaiians greeted Cook and his men by hurling rocks; they then stole a small cutter vessel from the Discovery. Negotiations with King Kalaniopuu for the return of the cutter collapsed after a lesser Hawaiian chief was shot to death and a mob of Hawaiians descended on Cook’s party. The captain and his men fired on the angry Hawaiians, but they were soon overwhelmed, and only a few managed to escape to the safety of the Resolution. Captain Cook himself was killed by the mob. A few days later, the Englishmen retaliated by firing their cannons and muskets at the shore, killing some 30 Hawaiians. The Resolution and Discovery eventually returned to England.
Beneath the circle is a motif depicting water, while at the top, the triangles represent fire. In the real world, water and fire are the two elements that cannot be mixed, but the spiritual essence of these elements mix in the hula. The ancient kumu hula of Molokai stressed to their students that they should dance with the fluidity of water and with the spark of fire.
The middle row of diamonds, is a design called by the Hawaiians "na maka ke akua," or "eyes of the gods." Eyes are symbolic of the past, because our ancestors look upon us and guide us in this life. Eyes also represent the living, as we look back upon the paths of our ancestors for inspiration and guidance.
The hula provides a means for us to look back to the works of our ancestors through its movements, motions and chants.
Above the "na maka ke akua" design are ferns representing the greenery worn by the dancers and below is the half-circle-point motif representing the rays of the sun rising in the east.
To the early Hawaiians, the rising sun was symbolic of constant renewal and rebirth in the hula.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.